Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

I want to challenge the reasoning used by Wal Thornhill and Bishop Nicholas Sykes asserting the speed of gravity must be nearly instantaneous in the ThunderboltsProject video "What is the Speed of Gravity?". I believe the reasoning used in the Sykes diagram may be incorrect. This is my first post and I have not been able to find and read the Oct 22 2016 Thunderbolts forum post that Sykes refers to. If anyone can help me locate that I would be grateful.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of Electric Universe concepts. The following statements outline how I understand the speed of gravity in some circumstances. If this isn't clear enough to be convincing, I can post an alternative argument with some diagrams. If I'm wrong I hope someone can explain why.

I am assuming the Sun rotates with respect to the Earth.
*If the speed of gravity is instantaneous then the Sun has rotated for 0 minutes by the time the Earth experiences it's gravitational pull.
*If the speed of gravity is C then the Sun has rotated for approx 8 minutes by the time the Earth experiences it's gravitational pull.
*If the speed of gravity is C/2 then the Sun has rotated for approx 8*2 minutes by the time the Earth experiences it's gravitational pull.
*All such cases are equivalent because the Sun's centre of gravity is in the same position relative to the Earth. The only change is the realtime rotational position of the Sun due to the gravitational delay. The Earth can thus have a stable orbit for *any speed of gravity*.

I believe this holds for any binary star system because the realtime position of each star is irrelevant if there is any delay in their gravitational attraction. This also holds if the Earth's orbit was elliptical.

I could not find Nicholas Sykes post for Oct 22, 2016. There is no means to search for a post by its date. I would need to know what was Sykes' username or the title of the thread. (Of course the post would be on v2.0.)

I am assuming the Sun rotates with respect to the Earth.

Keep in mind that the biggest problem is not so much the Sun's rotation but rather the Sun's motion through the Galaxy. The question is with an 8 minute delay, how does the Earth "know" where will be the future location of the moving Sun?

What is the Speed of Gravity? | Space News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73mZMcV-OgU

Quantum experiments have long demonstrated that subatomic particles somehow “know” about each other instantly, and at great distances. Institutional science utilizes terms such as quantum entanglement and spooky action to describe the phenomena. But the Electric Universe theory offers a very different perspective. The speed of light limit to communication imposed by the theory of relativity is not a universal speed limit. In this Space News episode, Nicholas Sykes elaborates the fundamental differences in this regard between those of the Electric Universe and standard cosmology.

Previous Nick Sykes Space News, "Are the Dominoes Falling for Standard Cosmology?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEYdsZFNOrE

Wal Thornhill EU 2015 Presentation: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity: https://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiBxWieQU

That's annoying. I can see at 5:04 into the video they show a screen shot of the Forum in the "Electric Universe" section but I can't find Oct 22, 2016

This is the search string I used:

"electric universe" "Oct 22, 2016" site://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/

Found nothing.

Bishop Sykes seems to be talking about the Tom Van Flandern book, DARK MATTER, MISSING PLANETS AND NEW COMETS, which is available on Amazon. That's another book that I forgot to buy when it was last mentioned. In my cart, now. HA!

Thanks...

Wiki - Tom Van Flandern

Le Sage's theory of gravitation and the speed of gravity

Van Flandern supported Georges-Louis Le Sage's theory of gravitation, according to which gravity is the result of a flux of invisible "ultra-mundane corpuscles" impinging on all objects from all directions at superluminal speeds. He gave public lectures in which he claimed that these particles could be used as a limitless source of free energy, and to provide superluminal propulsion for spacecraft.

In 1998 Van Flandern wrote a paper asserting that astronomical observations imply that gravity propagates at least twenty billion times faster than light, or even infinitely fast. Gerald E. Marsh, Charles Nissim-Sabat and Steve Carlip demonstrated that Van Flandern's argument was fallacious.

This is the paper they mention:

THE SPEED OF GRAVITY WHAT THE EXPERIMENTS SAY
https://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Speed_of_Gravity.htm

These are the papers in response:

Comment on "The speed of gravity"
https://zenodo.org/record/1260033#.X3zEpS9h1TY

Aberration and the Speed of Gravity
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087

BTW, when people talk about the speed of gravity as being equal to light speed, I always visualize a spring connecting the Earth and Moon, and a spring connecting Earth and Sun, and a spring connecting Moon and Sun.

The Sun moves through the galaxy dragging the Earth and Moon along with it. The springs are tugging and pulling, rapidly destabilizing the system.

allynh:

BTW, when people talk about the speed of gravity as being equal to light speed, I always visualize a spring connecting the Earth and Moon, and a spring connecting Earth and Sun, and a spring connecting Moon and Sun.
The Sun moves through the galaxy dragging the Earth and Moon along with it. The springs are tugging and pulling, rapidly destabilizing the system.

I have not followed the various "speed of gravity" ideas very closely; but this is what I think about the subject.
Saying the speed of gravity is instantaneous, or at the speed of light, seems to me to be a digital view or way of thinking.
Like the old add for better cable reception the guy in the grass field says "can you hear me now....walks a few feet....How about now "?
For each moment in time there is a pulse of gravity and we need to figure out how fast it goes, etc.

I think matter interacts gravitationally in more of an analog situation; perhaps like the springs of allynh above.
The relationships are established, ongoing and constant. (by "constant" I'm including elliptical orbits)
How it all works...I dono.

Van Flandern as we all know said at least 20 billion c (after Laplace). I like that.
EU says almost instantaneous. Something to do with subtronic speed. Ok.
The modern Einsteinian Dark Age mafia gatekeepers say instantaneous because for example re the Earth & the Sun the Sun can be considered to be fixed or something & hence the moving Earth feels that the Sun is where it actually is. Nope.
And at the same time they say that the speed of quadrupolar change is the same as the speed of light. Nope again.

The cause of gravity & inertia has been explained/discovered by Prof Reg Cahill.
He has say 50 papers in his Process Physics, most of which deal with the aetherwind (which he calls dynamic space or quantum foam or something).
But i dont remember him having anything to say about the speed of gravity (& i am too lazy to look).

I had a read of Marsh & Nissim-Sabat. And Carlip. What heaps of Einsteinian krapp.
Likening gravity to charge-magnetism. Nope.
Invoking Lorentz (nope). And Minkowski & world lines etc. I feel sick.

Once upon a time a silly young man had a dream about forked lightning hitting the embankment at a railway station.
And this naturally led to the speeds of gravity (2 ovem), & gravity waves, & the bigbang, & singularity blackholes etc etc.
I feel sick.

Adiyogi -- Aether and Space -- by Sadhguru -- youtube 5 June 2018 --13:12 long -- 118,000 views. At the 1:10 mark.....
"...... on the aether part i'm glad you're confused because confusion is a much better state to be than stupid conclusions that one makes -- confusion means u are still looking -- that's nice -- that's my intent to keep u confused -- yeah -- because i want u to be seeking always ......"

jacmac wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:36 pm allynh:

BTW, when people talk about the speed of gravity as being equal to light speed, I always visualize a spring connecting the Earth and Moon, and a spring connecting Earth and Sun, and a spring connecting Moon and Sun.
The Sun moves through the galaxy dragging the Earth and Moon along with it. The springs are tugging and pulling, rapidly destabilizing the system.

I have not followed the various "speed of gravity" ideas very closely; but this is what I think about the subject.
Saying the speed of gravity is instantaneous, or at the speed of light, seems to me to be a digital view or way of thinking.
Like the old add for better cable reception the guy in the grass field says "can you hear me now....walks a few feet....How about now "?
For each moment in time there is a pulse of gravity and we need to figure out how fast it goes, etc.

I think matter interacts gravitationally in more of an analog situation; perhaps like the springs of allynh above.
The relationships are established, ongoing and constant. (by "constant" I'm including elliptical orbits)
How it all works...I dono.

In my aether theory aether is annihilated in Earth & the acceleration of the aether inflow to replace the lost aether drags objects towards Earth, the Earthly inflow streamlines converging in 3D giving a 1/RR in the equation for that dragging force, which we call gravitational force. And an opposite force acts on the Earth.

And the reciprocal of that process gives inertia -- if u accelerate an object the acceleration drags aether, & the aether resists, thusly we have a force which we call inertia. And the accelerator requires an equal & opposite force dragging aether the other way.

Mass is the property of needing an inertial force for acceleration.
Mass is the ability to annihilate aether. And everything annihilates aether (eg free photons & free neutrinos), except that gravity & inertia dont annihilate aether.

An object with a uniform velocity throo the aether doesnt suffer any nett aether drag force. But all massive particles in that object annihilate aether, resulting in an aether inflow, which has no effect on the object's velocity.

As aether has no mass it cannot itself give a force, what it does is it transfers drag force to nearby massive bodies, the transfer having a speed of at least 20 billion c. The transfer is in the form of a shock-front or pulse or wave involving a continuous never-ending reverberation.

The full potential gravitational mass or inertial mass of an object is only attained if there is other significant surrounding mass in every direction, bearing in mind that aetheric reverberation can reach the Sun & then return to Earth at least 20 million times per second. Attaining full gravitational mass is an issue for large objects (eg stars), it depends on the proximity of surrounding stars & even surrounding galaxies.

All quantum things that we see or feel have mass, eg free photons & free neutrinos, ie they annihilate aether.
A free photon is the true elementary particle, & when a photon forms a loop it is said to be a confined photon (Williamson)(Ranzan)(which is an electron or quark etc). When a free photon becomes a confined photon its mass increases praps a million fold, depending on the tightness of the confinement (in which case mass is not conserved).

Anyhow that's a start.
What is the Einsteinian theory for gravity?? Well it starts like this.......
Once upon a time forked lightning hit the embankment at a railway station ......
And then...........
Once upon a time a man lived in a spacious chest in outer space ...........

To throw another couple of names in the mix: Gabriel LaFreniere's Wave Theory of Gravity (for more on LaFreniere's theory on fields of force, see here).

Yuri Ivanov - Gravitation and The Gravitational 'Spider'

I'm still not sure what I want to do with these, but the speed of gravity is dependent entirely on the presence or absence of a radiation pressure field between bodies (basically instantaneous). Any comments?

JP Michael wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:52 am To throw another couple of names in the mix: Gabriel LaFreniere's Wave Theory of Gravity (for more on LaFreniere's theory on fields of force, see here).

Yuri Ivanov - Gravitation and The Gravitational 'Spider'

I'm still not sure what I want to do with these, but the speed of gravity is dependent entirely on the presence or absence of a radiation pressure field between bodies (basically instantaneous). Any comments?

The only fields that act instantly are fields that have mass. Gravity acts to give objects the property we call mass & inertia, but gravity itself does not have mass. Gravity is not instantaneous.

Charge & magnetism are instantaneous, in the sense that they propagate at say c km/s, but when they (their fields)(or changes in their fields) arrive they manifest as a force immediately. See what i mean?? Gravity cant do that, it cant manifest immediately. Not that we can really tell.
Charge & magnetism require energy input.

Gravity propagates at say more than 20 billion c km/s, & when it (the field)(or change in the field) arrives it doesnt manifest immediately (crudely put), full manifestation is the result of a continual & continuous backnforth reverberation of pulses in the aether, the pulses propagating (in every direction) at more than 20 billion c.
Gravity doesnt require energy input, gravity just is.

nick c
"I am assuming the Sun rotates with respect to the Earth."
I should have deleted that statement because it's irrelevant to my argument.

"the Sun's motion through the Galaxy"
I do assume that the Sun doesn't move relative the Earth's orbit. If there is motion through the Galaxy it applies to the whole solar system.

I'm just trying to establish if my reasoning and conclusion is true...
Earth can be in a stable orbit around the Sun wirh *any* speed of gravity.

Sykes' assertion that the speed of gravity must be fixed and instantaneous otherwise stable orbits wouldn't be possible, must then be false.

This discussion has turned out to be a useful resource of ideas and references but I'm just trying to establish if my conclusion is true:
Earth can be in a stable orbit around the Sun with *any* speed of gravity.

philHarmonic wrote: Earth can be in a stable orbit around the Sun with *any* speed of gravity.

If gravity was not close to instantaneous, the Solar System would fly apart.

The helical model - our solar system is a vortex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU

This video goes into detail about how that motion effects the calendar.

How Earth Moves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJhgZBn-LHg

That's why I mentioned visualizing springs connecting Earth, Moon, Sun, if speed of gravity was equal to light speed. Springs have give and would be constantly stretching or shrinking.

The pull of gravity would not be consistent and the Solar System would fly apart.

philHarmonic wrote:I'm just trying to establish if my reasoning and conclusion is true...
Earth can be in a stable orbit around the Sun wirh *any* speed of gravity.

Sykes' assertion that the speed of gravity must be fixed and instantaneous otherwise stable orbits wouldn't be possible, must then be false.

This discussion has turned out to be a useful resource of ideas and references but I'm just trying to establish if my conclusion is true:
Earth can be in a stable orbit around the Sun with *any* speed of gravity.

If you are looking for long term stability of the Solar System good luck.
There is no long term stability of the Solar System, and that is not even considering the 'speed of gravity' problem.
In fact a gravitational system composed of three or more bodies, from a strictly mathematical perspective, is over time inherently unstable and eventually chaotic. It is called the n-body problem.
see:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080625235 ... arsys.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... irrelevant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem

philHarmonic wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:14 pm Earth can be in a stable orbit around the Sun with *any* speed of gravity.

I would agree with this. Under the assumption that there are no other bodies.

An easy way to visualize it is to represent Sun's gravity as a static well which the Earth circles, being held at the steep wall by centrifugal force. This answers the question of "how does the Earth know where the Sun would be": the Sun, in a way, already sent that signal to the next point of Earth's orbit. (A poor man's visualization of a field).

In a more complex system (3+ interacting bodies), as nick c pointed out, even Newtonian instant gravity may (but not necessarily would) lead to various secular terms and instabilities. And if you add finite gravitation speed, it would only get worse.

paladin17 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 3:05 pm

philHarmonic wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:14 pm Earth can be in a stable orbit around the Sun with *any* speed of gravity.

I would agree with this. Under the assumption that there are no other bodies.

An easy way to visualize it is to represent Sun's gravity as a static well which the Earth circles, being held at the steep wall by centrifugal force. This answers the question of "how does the Earth know where the Sun would be": the Sun, in a way, already sent that signal to the next point of Earth's orbit. (A poor man's visualization of a field).

In a more complex system (3+ interacting bodies), as nick c pointed out, even Newtonian instant gravity may (but not necessarily would) lead to various secular terms and instabilities. And if you add finite gravitation speed, it would only get worse.

For that to be true then each gravity signal would have to have its own mass.
Nope.
And a body would have to be continuously radiating gravity energy.
Nope again.